MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399491003 · doi:10.33002/jelp040104

Environmental Consequences of the Kakhovka H.P.P. Destruction in Ukraine: Challenge and Opportunity for International Justice

2024· article· en· W4399491003 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nataliia Malysheva, Anna Hurova

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Law & Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalPolitical scienceEnvironmental lawInternational lawLawStatuteInternational courtEnvironmental crimeEconomic JusticePublic international law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a legal analysis of the destruction of the Kakhovka hydroelectric power plant dam that took place on June 6, 2023 in Russian-occupied Ukraine. Highlighting the role of Russian troops in this act, the authors equate its consequences to the 1986 Chornobyl disaster. The dam's explosion marks a severe environmental catastrophe amidst ongoing high-intensity hostilities in Ukraine, threatening vast natural areas with environmental disaster. Authors discuss the broad environmental and cross-border impacts, particularly in the Black Sea basin, and review the international environmental conventions breached by this incident. The event aligns with the concept of ecocide, a term not yet fully established in international law, but increasingly recognized. The article emphasizes the possibility of prosecuting those responsible for extensive, long-term, and severe environmental damage under existing legal frameworks. Focusing on international legal instruments, the article explores the grounds for international criminal responsibility and examines the jurisdictions that could address the ecocide, including the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, a proposed Special Ad-Hoc Tribunal, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The authors argue that the Kakhovka dam case presents the ICC with a unique opportunity to enforce international norms against severe environmental damage during hostilities, as outlined in Article 8.2b (iv) of the Rome Statute. They conclude that the ICC’s involvement would be a significant step in proving its capability to address war crimes involving environmental destruction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Law & PolicySame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207